I was originally going to ask how many legal genders there should be, but I fail to see a compelling argument against 0.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 13 hours ago* (23 children)

Medical issues.

Men and women have different anatomy and needs. Knowing your biological sex for medical reasons is kinda important.

Everywhere else, it's a social construct and does not matter in the slightest.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 hours ago*

    "Biological sex" says jack shit about a trans person's biological characteristics, especially deep into transition. It's more often than not a dogwhistle that transphobes use to imply that trans women have the same violent sexual tendencies as many cis men, and to imply that those characteristics are somehow immutable.

    The state does not need to get involved in a medical discussion between a trans patient and their doctor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 hours ago

    Lol imagine going to a doctor and they can't figure out your gender if it's not on you legal documents.

    Get another Dr. I think this one got his license from Trump university

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 hours ago

    The blood group is very important too, for medical issues, but I don't think it is common to make it a legal marker (such as on passport).

    Also, some people are born not matching exactly the classical genders, and labeling them legaly male or female can be misleading for medical things...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 21 points 13 hours ago (12 children)

    Does it need to be tied to the legal system, though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 12 hours ago (10 children)

    Only in-so-far as medical regulation would require. Like if the hospital failed to check this crucial information and made a mistake because of it they should be held liable. Having it on your ID might also be important if you list yourself as an organ donor; not sure if that would matter but it might.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 12 hours ago (9 children)

    I can think of a handful of ways of confirming someone's biology without checking official documentation. After all, hospitals still check blood types and tissue types

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

    That takes time. You don't want to get the wrong dose of fentanyl, but you'll definitely want fentanyl if you've been hit by a car and broke some ribs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    Okay but that argument kind of falls apart when you know that emergency medicine won't, for example, give a patient a dose of fentanyl without having naloxone immediately on hand. I am not a paramedic but I have known a few and a few ER nurses and they are almost always working with more unknowns than knowns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (1 child)

    And why would you want to add an additional unknown factor again? Because that's what you'd be doing by removing sex from the basic information card.

    Don't see how increasing the amount of times naloxone is given is beneficial here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 hours ago*

    I mean it's not, what I'm saying is that the only time a patient's gender being unknown is a risk is in emergency situations. Otherwise the doctor and the patient are going to have a conversation before the doctor does anything and it should come up then. Although I should hope that it's not a doorknob comment.

    With the only situation when a person's gender is undermined is when the doctor and/nurses are already working with less than ideal information. Having a person's sex/gender on their identification isn't really answering the questions that need answering then. The only reason it's so important is because the protocols are built with the assumption that the person is one of two genders. Which lets not even begin to get into the atypical sex's (XXX, XXy, Xyy, ect). It's an outdated standard but it's so engrained into everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 child)

    I think the same for the donor marker in general. Can't the hospital system keep that info? Why does it need to be on my ID?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 12 hours ago

    Yup, that's my point. I don't think a government (should) need this.

    On that note, I learned from another commenter that in Germany you can have your gender deleted from their database.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 9 hours ago

    Crime investigation purposes. The information on state ID was used s as a resource for crime fighting. Once DNA analysis became a thing, knowing male vs female was even more important.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (6 children)

    Everyone has a different anatomy/needs. You know how many random foramen and bones people can have? Random extra shit that the body spontaneously develops on it's own for no reason? Most of them are fine, some are not, but to say we need to know if you fit into the "male" or "female" box to treat you is incorrect. We need to know so much more. In fact, I think the mere presence of a vagina seems to tell a lot of doctors "Don't take this persons pain seriously," so I think if we just assume everyone is a male or a testosterone/testes-deficient male at the clinic, we might get better results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago* (5 children)

    Tbh most of the medical history men's anatomy was treated as the default, not much far off from what you're suggesting. Therefore now medical doctors still have no idea wtf is going on during perimenopause despite half the population going through it and as someone in the thick of it I can tell you that no, we abso-fucking-lutely need a more specialized women's healthcare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

    This also I think could be fixed by taking a more human-centric holistic approach. Don't need to know you're a woman, just that you're experiencing drastic hormone changes. BAM, we gotta help regulate those hormones. Men love finding out they're low on testosterone, so they can start taking a bunch. Women should be able to get their hormones just as easily.

    Trans people should go to the doctor and be like, I appear to be missing a bunch of estrogen and progesterone! and the doctor should be like "no shit, that sucks, here's a prescription for them."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 hours ago* (3 children)

    This assumes that men and women have the same medical needs. They don't. Our average hormonal balances are completely different so for a doctor to be able asses doses, they need to know what the average hormonal balance is for women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

    but what they really need to know is the average hormonal balance for that specific person, before they started going out of whack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    Except women's hormonal balances change during different phases of each month, but not for men. Thus the need to study women's health since women and men have different phisiologies. Oh look, we've come full circle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago

    I mean, yes, we need to study women's health more. It's a big glaring hole in a ton of medical research. I'm just trying to stay with the vibe of the thread. I think that just like with cutting edge cancer research being done that focuses on tailoring the specific drug/method of action to that persons specific cancer, so too should most of our medical treatments be tailored not just to what's between your legs, but to you, specifically. More research into everyone, but especially the largely ignored demographic of women, is needed to accomplish this. So... you're right, but I think I'm right too.

  • source
  • parent